Hacker News Reader

Comment by m12k | Hacker News Reader

Who would have thought we’d see the U.S. start imitating Russia in more and more ways like this?

It is a good start, but in the last 50 years, Russia has started maybe 1 or 2 wars at most, arguably. Can you even count the U.S. wars? I mean, I really wish U.S did start to imitate Russia more.

Ukraine, Georgia, Afghanistan, Chechnya. These are clear-cut with Russia as the driving aggressor. All the other 20 or so in eg. Mali and Dagestan might be less so, but should probably also be counted.

I would take the Chechnya away from that list, you can't be in war with yourself, Chechnya is part of Russia.

By that logic the US independence war (1775-1783) was not a ”war” either because the colonies were part of England. Neither were the war of 1861-1865 between the northern and southern states. Can’t be at war with yourself?

Not really (unless it was at least recently a different country), I wouldn't call what ETA or IRA were doing a war, Google calls it (separatist) campaign and I tend to agree, though first words which came to my mind were separatist movements and terrorism (though I can see their reasoning).

With Palestine vs Israel I would tend to call it a war since Palestine's own country was taken and it is occupied by different artifically created country, so I would say it is two countries at war.

I have met a lot of revisionist historians over the years, but this you are the strangest one yet.

Apparently the US can. They have ICE ready to fight inland terrorists like people with signs or nearby a poorly maintained pool.

Operation Cyclone is largely understood as one of the main reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan by Russia. So US again is to blame as much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

To blame as much as Russia, who actually invaded? No.

US invaded by proxy through arming and supporting Islamists to destabilise a fairly legitimate government because it was aligned with Russia.

Think if Russia today arms an anti-democracy militia in Canada in order to destabilise USA. Any subsequent invasion of Canada by US would be a natural order of power play.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war

"Invaded by proxy" is not actually a thing. You're trying to make arming an insurgency sound equivalent to a full-on invasion, and they are not equivalent.

The US did not arm the Islamists in order to destabilize Russia, just a Russian client. In response, Russia invaded and removed the client government - the very government that the Islamists were trying to remove.

If Russia today armed an anti-democracy militia in Canada, would the US invade Canada? No (at least, any previous administration would not). We would share intel, help cut off the flow of arms, maybe even do a joint operation against the militia. But conquer Canada? Why would we do that?

So your analogy is as flawed as your moral equivalence.

"Invasion by proxy" is very much a thing. And I am not trying to make it sound like equivalent to a full-on invasion, like the one the US did later on, but it is a thing the same way "being in a proxy war" is a thing, and of course, that is not the same as being "full-on at war".

Insisting on dichotomy between attempting to destabilise a union or one of it's bordering states, a client/satellite state is clutching at the straws.

You overlook categorical differences where it matters and then makeup binary lines for nuanced and things that happen on a spectrum like destabilisation where it is convenient for you. That is lazy at best, or dishonest at worst.

> But conquer Canada? Why would we do that?

You seem to have no idea about US is conduct with it's allies throughout history where it comes to her interests priority. Henry Kissinger didn't say "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." because he felt like it. It is a reflection of US's modus operandi. Liberia, Panama, Argentine Junta, Iraq, Iran, Iraqi Kurds of 70s, Peshmarga of 2020s, Nicaragua in 80s, endless examples.

The problem is not with the analogy, it is your lack of understanding of US's modus operandi and her historical conduct.

I'd argue the US only got dragged into lots of conflicts because of its role as de-facto global hegemon.

A lot of wars it did not really start; if you blame the US for Vietnam (instead of the french), you also have to count South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transistria and Chechnya 1 & 2 on the Russian side.

The industrialized nations that actually did laudably little warmongering in the last half centuries are (somewhat ironically) the core WW2-axis powers: Italy, Austria, Germany, Japan; despite having plenty of "opportunities" to start something (e.g. over Königsberg/Silesia, Dalmatia, Kuril islands, ...)

> you blame the US for Vietnam (instead of the french)

I'm all for saying french caused a lot of death and destruction, but the Vietnam war was clearly created by the US during the 1954 Geneva Conference. Also, US-British involvement in France politics during the Indochina war (under Truman: Roosevelt didn't had to deal with Dixiecrats and give racist idiots a new enemy) probably made the 'sale guerre' last way longer that it had to.

My view is that France tried to hold on to Indochina unjustifiably for almost a decade after WW2.

So they get the blame because the US could have hardly escalated a proxy war without proxies.

Not saying America is blameless though, but I do blame France for setting the whole thing up basically (split Vietnam), and for all the wrong reasons, too.

You ought to remember that 40% of french voted communist in 48. Without heavy involvement of CIA and MI6 to curb the movements (including assassinations), the sentiment would probably have grow, which would have stopped the war (also, now that I think about it, it also means that the soviet are even biggest culprits on this as they did kill more french leftist in 5 years than everyone else combined). The more centrist government also would have tried to get out by 49 without the heavy British investment, and later USA support. And during the peace deal in 54, the milk toast also known as Mendes France accepted a first peace deal that the US then refused, and the division of Vietnam was probably US decision too.

"...laudably little warmongering.." - forgetting China here perhaps?

Not counting China (and South Korea) because they joined the "industrialized" club much later than the rest, but so far it is looking good, and I'm somewhat hopeful because their demographics make war an increasingly risky proposition.

> Who would have thought we’d see the U.S. start imitating Russia in more and more ways like this?

Adam Curtis saw it coming a long time ago.

This may add fuel to the theory (?) that Trump is a russian asset.

Can we stop with this already? American oligarchs are perfectly able to destroy the country on their own. And they've been very transparent about their intentions to do so for a long time.

Both can be true. Trump and family do have very deep Russian connections in terms of financing. That's very true. His own sons have admitted it. Trump has said he loves Russian banks.

American oligarchs are also schmoozing trump, clearly, because he's an easy mark.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com